Saturday, February 16, 2013

The 1964 Socorro/Zamora Symbol: Not Extraterrestrial

Copyright, 2013, InterAmerica, Inc.

We have persisted in dragging the alleged symbol or insignia seen by Officer Lonnie Zamora on the craft he observed in Socorro, New Mexico in 1964 into the light of day too often, and here we go again.

This is the publicized symbol, the one everyone thinks that Officer Zamora saw and drew:

This is the symbol that Ray Sanford and a few fringe ufologists say is the actual symbol Officer Zamora saw and drew, but didn't make public at the behest of the Air Force (to deter copycatters, ostensibly):

The matter has never been adequately resolved. Officer Zamora's wife told me (once in a phone call) that the symbol her husband saw and drew was the first one above.

Whichever symbol or insignia is the right one, one has to remember that Officer Zamora was rather far away and wearing corrective glasses for inferior eyesight.

That aside, the symbol or insignia, both of them as shown here, can be found in this book:

Take your pick: both are alchemical symbols, representing amalgam or an alloy of mercury and silver, or a representational sign used to designate a disordered mind, or even Mars.

But neither symbol was created by an extraterrestrial culture; the symbols are too Earthian in construction.

Anthony Bragalia would propose that the symbols were put on a balloon by students of the Chemistry Department at New Mexico's Institute of Technology as part of a hoax to gull and torment Officer Zamora whom they didn't like.

We reject the hoax idea. the scenario is too ornate for a created prank.

But if that isn't the case and extraterrestrials are not the creators of the insignia, who or what is?

We have always proposed that Officer Zamora saw a Hughes Aircraft/CIA designed prototype. (See our archives here or at the RRRGroup blog for details.)

Even if our suggestion rankles, one must admit that Carl Liungman's litany of symbols in his book (pictured above) account, in some way, for what Officer Zamora saw an drew.

That means that the symbols -- either one -- are human in construction, and not an alien composition.

43 Comments:

Zamora drew the first "insignia" (with modest variations) four times, twice on the same page within the text of his original statement, as found in PBB. He drew them for the USAF well before Sanford, the Lorenzens, or anyone else ufo-minded called on him. The Lorenzens drew a version of it for Hayden Hewes who thought it looked like a double hatch, and that perhaps the two beings had scooted up through it.

There is simply nothing about the insignia to make it unusual enough to be rare, and can be found in various symbol sets (including air rescue). Jacque Fresco's Venus Project has a similar logo.

...to complicate this further, Allen Hynek caused the public release of a false symbol drawing, with the idea of using the real drawing as an attempt at a controlled verification experiment should ANOTHER Socorro-Like Object (SLO) event occur... rather clever...

That looks remarkably like affirming the consequent. You only know of a single space-faring species -- humans. While it is true that my cat probably doesn't understand/appreciate the 'beauty' of perfect geometric figures in that 'Greek' way, my cat isn't capable of flying a space craft either.

I happen to find it rather implausible that another space-faring species would NOT have that Greek appreciation of such SIMPLE and BASIC geometric shapes...

But experience, itself, may not be unique. As I said -- any space faring species would likely have an understanding of lines, curves, circles, triangles, etc.

And no, I would not anthropomorphise (sic) a possible visiting ET race. And were you not so damn combative, you'd see that. I don't find it uniquely-human to understand rudimentary shapes of geometry. Insignias, however, are far more suspect...that seems more likely uniquely-human.

Or, to put it another way... I don't find it the least bit surprising that a visiting ET race understands geometry -- they probably understand it every bit as much as we do, and then some! But I do find it odd that they would use insignias -- that's more of a BEHAVIORAL issue.

Maybe a humanoid species from another planet would draw geometrical shapes. Would they draw one on their craft? We do so for purposes of identification or branding, and because there may be laws or regulations requiring it.

Rich, Zamora was a good witness with decreasing odds of being accurate as the event developed, and especially during the disappearance when, from his account, he was shocked and disoriented. Before then, when he noted the insignia, the bright late afternoon sun in April in the high desert was shining directly on the object and the insignia in front of him.

Due to the brilliance of the light on the curved white surface, the reflection and scattering of the light could have 'blown out' part of what he was seeing. He may not have seen the complete "insignia".

It could even have been what he could see under those conditions of a USAF roundel.

Well, that's the total of what I think about Socorro. The interesting part for me is, of course, Lincoln La Paz's relationship with Zamora. Now, that, I find very interesting.

I addressed Zamora's visual acuity at UFO UpDates many years ago, and raised hackles there as Rudiak, a doctor or Optometry, neglected to deal with Zamora's eyesight when he lost his glasses near the termination of his sighting -- when the "object" departed.

But as Zamora saw the insignia, he provided a rendition of it that may be accurate or flawed.

I accept that he got it down rather accurately, but that isn't the issue.

Your point and P's that it's a behavioral issue takes precedence perhaps.

Why do a human thing and use a marking to "identify" your "craft."

That's a Hughes Aircraft (or CIA/Raven) thing, not an ET thing.

Although one can argue that an ET race might do so -- the operative word being "might."

As for LaPaz and Zamora's association, it is a side-bar without relevance to my thesis or the 1964 sighting itself, but you like to digress.

I won't be going there, as usual, but it is a topic your site might indulge in, even if just to assuage your oblique curiosity.

"And writing "they probably understand it every bit as much as we do, and then some!" shows how you would make alleged ET visitors anthropomorphic."

You said it yourself -- it's a Euclidian DISCOVERY, not an INVENTION. There are enormous differences between those two terms, as you surely know.

And yes, I would expect them to know geometry better than we do, IF they're here visiting us, rather than the other way around. That's not anthropomorphism -- it's simply the recognition that they're more expert in their traversing 3D space than we are.

"I won't be going there, as usual, but it is a topic your site might indulge in, even if just to assuage your oblique curiosity."

Eventually. Ufology has been kicking the Socorro can for longer than it has Roswell's. It is easy to take in the full story and find oneself where everyone else is: ET? No ET? Hoax? No Hoax? Where will new "revelations" come from? Identifying the insignia? How long have people been looking for it? What have they got?

But La Paz tells the press he'd known and worked with Zamora for 16 years? Count it off: 16 years = 1948.

But it is off-topic here. No problem.

I take it no one asked Zamora about it. If not, it is right near the top of ufologists' missed opportunities, right next to Edwards, or Bloecher, or McDonald not making a few phone calls to Roswell in the 50s and 60s.

"So, do tell -- what is the great clue that the LaPaz/Zamora association holds for you and the 1964 sighting itself?"

It has little to do with 1964, except as you note, Zamora's reputation as an observer. But for me, it has to do with La Paz. For example, Zamora could have resolved the issue of whether La Paz spoke Spanish. Zamora could have given us information about La Paz's hunt for Green Fireballs. He may even have known Rickett.

But, it is off-topic here, I agree. I was indicating why I don't spin my wheels over Socorro, but find something in the account of interest which also refers to Zamora's observational skills.

Rich, I thought two mea culpas would be sufficient to end my participation in this discussion, but you have a message for me. Thanks.

"I know you hope that someone in the group discussion might have some information for you (or know what's for dinner), but that's a debate imposition that borders on rude."

My experience the past five years is that ufologists suffer from a 'guildy' conscience, holding everything close to their hearts, and, except for David, do not share, even if I share with them. So, I don't anymore.

I thought I was gently and politely leaving the discussion. May I leave now, or do you still have a need to belabor me?

After a half-century of looking, including near half that time being internet enabled looking, no one has matched Zamora's "insignia" to any insignia, logo, or symbol. This leads me to think either:

a) Zamora did not recall it accuratelyorb) The craft wasn't from around here

The closest symbol set I've found to the "insignia" are IMO Fire Control symbols, and they aren't that close.

I don't think the NMT hoax hypothesis will be proved, even if it is true. If true, I hope Tony proves it and nails the little sociopaths.

There is no statute limitation on murder, but I don't know if it's the same for charges of conspiracy to murder a police officer, entrapment with the intent murder a police officer, and attempted murder.

You are right that I am not up on the study of the insignia, but I have made the cogent argument against the NMT Hoax, and on Iconoclasts to Frank Stalter, which is that Zamora's account of the "hot pursuit" of a "speeder" is not supported by Zamora's original statement, which means the hypothesis that Zamora was led to the site by the "speeder" is incorrect.

That's about all I have to say on Socorro, Rich...except to wonder whether Hynek ever drew Zamora's insignia for La Paz.

My view of this event takes into a larger context as I suspect what he saw was neither terrestrial or extraterrestrial which is discomforting to somewhat ironclad theories that are based on root causation as to the origination by location. Like countless other variants that are a differentiation of a pattern of what was seen, this is best described, although poorly, as a ghost phenomenon.Unless you are able to discount living in three dimensions, the insignia could have been created elsewhere as child's play. However, why bother to differentiate it with an insignia? In earthly terms, you do not want your craft bearing traceable "license plates" if it is an X craft..and if it is an X craft, why bother to do so if it is a unique prototype, easily discernible by it's uncommon characteristics if it is not capable of intercontinental flight?In precise terms, how debilitated was Zamoras eyesight? Does anyone have this information? If you replicated the distance between himself and the object, what was the level of clarity he was able to obtain? Another factor is the history of the development of tripods in avionics compared to their once fairly common presence in landing reports, that were evidenced by visual observation and ground traces. Another is the presence of prosaic fuel evidenced by the type of propulsion noted by the presence of flame, which is, a uniquely terrestrial utility for our particular availability in being able to refine this resourced fuel and adapt it to the particulars of our atmosphere. Extraterrestrials would have an impossible task to gather up the ingredients for a highly refined ( and short flight time) fuel. This is an example of an observation of a parody, a poor mimicry fraught with contradiction comparable to the free association of dreams is it not? Ghost ships, ghost avionic devices, cars, cats, dogs, strange mutations, humanoids,apes, humans, the list seems inexhaustible..so I think if anything this is a case of analogous poor eyesight trying to make a round peg fit into a square hole. BTW..I have that book as well..a great resource. The metaphysical significance of the number three, the tree points of the triangle and the horizontal "stripes" repeated twice is great..but here, this is ( I suspect) off topic.

I meant tripods in the generic sense which is a bit of wordsmith laziness on my part.Of course two tripods essentially underlines my last comment as to the nature of the craft is a caricature rather than representing utility based on the physics involved in cushioning a craft on uneven or even terrain to prevent damage while, more importantly, balancing it's weight to remain upright due to gravity. If what he saw was accurately portrayed, and if he did not confabulate the report what we have is a nonsensical craft. How many egg shaped craft with a similar platform have been demonstratively flown and more importantly, what is the advantage of going to the trouble of creating an egg shape unless we are looking at it in terms of atmospheric friction or drag? What was reported was nonsense that borrows some here, and a little there to create a representation of a hybrid of origins, that very neatly keeps the same old divide very alive between terrestrial and extraterrestrial origins being self referential in terms of our own knowledge and yet it has been apparent for decades neither explanation is viable. Why? Because of the evidence in it's full context is not in any repeatable pattern except by transients of trending in a parabola. The differentiation of mismatched parodies, exaggerated cartoons, etc that play on desire bias projection and expectations, that do not fit into any pragmatic causation or origin. They "cannot be" so therefore they appear as nonsensical while having a equally cogent pattern of being observed. Jung would have a field day with eggs in this egg hunt but the issue as I see it is that every theory has the baggage of philosophy behind it. We are trapped in investigation terms by what we are comfortable with..what we know rather than the inverse to think outside of our own referents and it's so speculative we fall back into old habits of analysis by a proverbial force of gravity in this. Our wax wings melt in the face of the full context and there is a sort of stubborn determination to domesticate the non sensible.We have literally thousands of puzzle pieces that do not fit, and so a mythos is a compelling retort as a half hearted belief system as the viral import of what these events suggest create a sort of anti virus of skeptics, belief systems, dead end realms of "hard" evidence..As Nietzsche opined.."all too human."

Rich I thought the top sign was an Italian Adult Art symbol denoting comic features many scenes of wives bending over in kitchen.

The bottom sign [so to speak] symbolising the venetian blinds salesman's the only character who doesn't score.

As for a terrestial symbol not being used by 'others' why not?

A) it might means something totally different to them as either a symbol or language b) it might be part of a psychological cueing system we don't even suspect c) as Charles Fort observed many traditional societies and indeed individual mystics such as Giordano Bruno and John Dee believed themselves in contact with non terrestial entities so maybe such events and symbols [both overt and unsuspected] communicate something to terrestial based groups to whom they make perfect sense.

Your observations are not goofy, but I'm of the persuasion that an alien culture's ideagrams or sribblings would be totally different from ours for evolutionary reasons, cultural evolution.....if that alien culture used such a primitive mode of communication.

We never let aliens actually be "alien", which is what's so out of whack with all this symbol discussion. Aliens would be highly unlikely to share ANY biological characteristics with us including sensory organs. The chances that we can conceive of what a "symbol" would be or mean for a non-human life form are smaller than those for winning the Mega Millions jackpot.

This is a human symbol, designed by humans. The only question is whether they were contemporary humans or whether this was a time traveling craft from sometime in our own future.

As has been pointed out a number of times here, those two symbols are of earthly origin, and have aeronautic function:

- The first symbol, with the semi-circle is designed to allow an aircraft to align its yaw, pitch and roll with that of another craft (try it!).- The second symbol, chevron intersecting with lines, is a device that with the use of a strobe allows the measurement of relative speed between two craft.

They would be used in combination during docking maneuvers, such as during in-flight fueling, or some such.

Painting them red would make them both easier to see by the human eye and by computer vision systems of the kind used in the late 60s/early 70s.